Amnesty International on 30×30: “Indigenous peoples and local communities experience violence and forced eviction in the context of protected areas on a massive scale”

By Chris Lang

In December 2022, the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity will be held in Montreal. The Global Biodiversity Framework, to be discussed at COP15, includes “30×30” – a proposal to put 30% of the planet in protected areas by 2030.

Amnesty International recently put out a position paper that includes a series of recommendations to governments, ahead of COP15. Amnesty International summarises the key messages of the paper as follows:

• Indigenous peoples and local communities experience violence and forced eviction in the context of protected areas on a massive scale;
• The CBD safeguards and targets currently in force do not sufficiently protect their rights;
• Robust protections of the rights of Indigneous peoples and local communities must be built into the Operative Paragraph on Target 3 on protected areas;
• Provisions in the text which call into question states’ commitments to legally recognised human rights, by making them subject to national legislation, must be removed;
• Indigenous peoples’ right to be consulted in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent on any decision affecting them, means that the safeguards demanded by them at the CBD must be include, in light of the enormity of the potential impact of 30 x 30 on them.

No guaranteed safeguards

In September 2020, Amnesty International was one of the more than 170 NGOs and academics that signed on to an open letter raising concerns about the proposed 30×30 target and the absence of safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

A small number of Indigenous People has taken part in CBD meetings about the Global Biodiversity Framework. But Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not protected in the current draft of the text. The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity has demanded text be included on protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights. But this text is still in square brackets.

Target 3 of the draft Global Biodiversity Framework currently reads as follows:

[Ensure that][ecosystems, habitats and the biodiversity they contain are maintained and restored by conserving]/[enable] at least [30 per cent] [globally][, at the national level,] of [terrestrial, [and] [freshwater]/[inland water] and marine [and coastal] areas] [land areas and of [[sea]/[marine] areas]/[the ocean][, respectively]], [inclusive of areas that are already protected and conserved,] especially areas[, at the national level,] of particular importance for biodiversity and [ecosystem [functions]/[services] and] [its contributions to people], are [effectively] conserved [and sustainably used] through [effectively]/[well-] managed and equitably governed, ecologically representative and well-connected [systems]/[networks] of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures [that prohibit environmentally-damaging activities], [including indigenous territories, when applicable,] and integrated into the wider land[-]/[scapes] and seascapes [and national and regional ecological networks], [while ensuring that sustainable use of these areas, if in place, contributes to biodiversity conservation,] [recognizing the contribution of IPLCs to their management, and ensuring the rights of IPLCs in accordance with UNDRIP and international human rights law][[bearing mind]/[recognizing] tha tnational contributions to this global target will be decided according to national priorities and capabilities, in accordance with the principles of the Rio Declaraion, with adequate safeguards for the rights of IPLCs and the rights to development, will not affect the rights or ability of all Parties to access financial and other resources required for the effective implementation of the whole GBF] [giving effect to]/[respecting]/[with full respect for human rights, including]/[fully respecting and upholding] the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, [including their land and territories][, including the right to prior and informed consent, free prior and informed consent and approval][, in light of national circumstances and with respect for national legislation]

Amnesty International notes that the fact that the safeguards text is in brackets,

means it has not yet been agreed and may still be deleted. Conversely, the text, “in light of national circumstances and with respect for national legislation”, also in square brackets is highly problematic as States may interpret it as allowing them to avoid their international human rights law obligations.

Indigenous Peoples are the best protectors of their territories

Amnesty International refers to a report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) which concludes that,

Nature is generally declining less rapidly in indigenous peoples’ land than in other lands, but is nevertheless declining.

IPBES explains that the decline is a result of external factors such as “growing resource extraction, commodity production, mining and transport and energy infrastructure”.

A 2021 report by Amnesty International found that “protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities on the land and forests they have customarily used or managed is considered a highly cost-effective way to protect forests, reduce soil degradation, better protect the biodiversity and ensure carbon sequestration.”

Amnesty International writes that,

This suggests that a highly promising way forward for biodiversity conservation would be for states to work with these peoples and communities to strengthen their role in the governance of their lands – particularly through processes to recognize legal land title, supported by the state with the necessary financial, technical and legal resources – tackle the negative external factors that inhibit conservation and strengthen traditional knowledge and its transmission to new generations.

As Amnesty International notes, sales of carbon offsets from protected areas creates a large financial incentive for states (and private companies) to retain control over protected areas rather than allowing the people who live there to manage their forests. The state therefore has a financial incentive not to recognise Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their territories.

Protected areas and human rights abuses

Amnesty International has documented large-scale human rights violations in Cambodia, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania, and Uganda. These include forced evictions, destruction of cultural practices, arbitrary arrests of protesting community members, denial of the right to livelihoods, health and eduction, and failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent.

Earlier this year, Minority Rights Group put out a report documenting a three-year campaign of violent forced evictions of the Indigenous Batwa of Kahuzi-Biega National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Fortress conservation has “not only resulted in catastrophic impoverishment, but has meant that the unique identity, culture and language of affected Indigenous peoples may disappear altogether”, Amnesty International writes.

Recommendations

Amnesty International concludes its position paper with four recommendations:

• The following text, currently in square brackets, is included in the operative paragraph of Target 3 of the GBF: “including indigenous territories”; “services and its contributions to people”; “recognizing the contribution of IPLCs to their management, and ensuring the rights of IPLCs in accordance with UNDRIP and international human rights law”; “in accordance with the principles of the Rio Declaration, with adequate safeguards for the rights of IPLCs”; “fully respecting and upholding”, “including their land and territories”, “including the right to free prior and informed consent and approval”; [27]
• The text “in light of national circumstances and with respect for national legislation” is not included;
• States should provide adequate funding, at a level corresponding to that invested in state-run initiatives, for protected areas declared and managed by Indigenous peoples or local communities, when requested by them; [28]
• The participation of representatives of Indigenous peoples and local communities in the GBF negotiations is genuine, effective, culturally appropriate and rights-compliant; this means that, in light of the enormous impact that Target 3 will have on their right to lands and natural resources, to self-determination, and to culture, the final text must only be agreed with their free, prior and informed consent.

---

[27] IPLC = Indigenous peoples and local communities; UNDRIP = United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[28] International Indian Treaty Council 47th Anniversary Conference, “Conference Resolution on Protected Areas”, March 2022, para. 8.

If these recommendations are not put in place, Amnesty International argues that the 30×30 target should not be included in the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Of course, even if the recommendations are put in place, whether they will actually be implemented is another question entirely. Given the track record of conservation and protected areas, implementation of safeguards is extremely unlikely.

Rosaleen Duffy, Professor of International Politics at the University of Sheffield, points out that in 2009, the big conservation NGOs all signed up to the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights, but the “track record of implementation is really poor. These agreements have led to very little in practice but instead provide useful PR.”